JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed of quashing the order passed by the disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority whereby he has been dismissed from service by virtue of an order of punishment passed in a departmental proceeding.
2. The petitioner was in the service of the respondents and was posted as Halka Karmachari. While he was posted as such a complaint was made before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj with regard to interpolation and forgery in respect of Jamabandi No. 123 of Mouja Hazipur, Bishrampur in Register I & II maintained in the office of the Circle Officer, Sahebganj.
3. The matter was investigated and a preliminary report was submitted regarding interpolation allegedly made by the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly charge-sheeted and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer after recording evidence and after considering all the documents submitted his report to the effect that the charges have been proved.
4. From the inquiry report, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the counter-affidavit, it appears that in support of the charges beside other officers the Circle Officer and the Additional Collector were examined but the petitioner did not cross-examine those witnesses. The Inquiry Officer further found that on earlier occasion also the petitioner had done the same mischief with the revenue records.
5. On receipt of the inquiry report the disciplinary authority issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner and after considering his second show-cause, passed the impugned order of punishment by way of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka who reconsidered and reappraised the entire evidence and affirmed the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and dismissed the appeal.
6. From perusal of the entire documents and the affidavits and after hearing the counsel for the parties I do not find any strong reason to exercise my power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. There does not appear any illegality in conducting the departmental proceeding and the order of dismissal passed on the basis of finding of fact recording by the Inquiry Officer after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The order of dismissal was also subjected to appeal, before the Commissioner who also considered the entire matter and affirmed the order of dismissal. In the circumstance this Court should be very slow in interfering with the finding of fact recorded in the departmental proceeding in which there is no irregularity. In this connection reference may be made to recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 AIR SCW 944.
7. Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in any view of the matter the order of punishment by way of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. I am not able to accept the submission of the learned counsel. It is well settled that once misconduct is proved then the Court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent in holding that the view taken by the High Court that if a delinquent pleads guilty then penalty of dismissal is not uncalled for is not proper. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in a case reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2172.
8. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any reason in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed.